UK to censor esoteric and porn sites

[tenni]

"UK Prime Minister David Cameron has recently set large segments of the world up in arms by deciding to set up a country-wide firewall that will block access to pornography unless citizens opt out. (Similar measures were tried earlier across the EU and summarily thrown out.) But the block apparently won’t be limited to porn: ISPs will also be forced to block violent material, extremist sites, pro-anorexia and pro-suicide sites, alcohol, smoking, web forums (?!) and even… esoteric material.

Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing relays: (http://boingboing.net/2013/07/26/uk-censorwall-will-also-block.htm)
You may be saying to yourself, hell, how are they going to be able to sort out which websites are unacceptably pornographic, let alone which sites are “smoking” related? That’s a damned good question, and the answer is “with the broadest brush possible.” Huge chunks of the Internet will be effectively unreachable, and which sites go into the censorship bucket will be decided upon in secret, by unelected employees of big corporations, like China’s Huawei. Sure, you can untick the box if you want, but as David Cameron’s advisors will tell you, defaults are powerful and most users never change them..................

It also, of course, raises massive questions about religious freedom, and the absolute human rights emergency of the state deciding that diverging from mainstream religious beliefs is apparently now forbidden.

How far will the UK (already revealed by Ed Snowden to be far more advanced along the surveillance-state path than the US) go in cracking down on Internet freedom—and will the United States follow suit? (I wrote up further analysis here (http://www.ultraculture.org/uk-forcing-internet-censorship-even-esoteric-sites/).) Let us know how you feel in the comments below and at our Facebook group. (https://www.facebook.com/ultraculturegate)"

http://www.ultraculture.org/uk-to-censor-esoteric-websites/

[liberlib]

'Esoteric' Trying to get a handle around that criteria. Does that mean that "they" will be blocking sites that do not know anything about? Or will "they" have to block there own site (the one where they are working out criteria) because it limited to select few?

[darkeyes]

"UK Prime Minister David Cameron has recently set large segments of the world up in arms by deciding to set up a country-wide firewall that will block access to pornography unless citizens opt out. (Similar measures were tried earlier across the EU and summarily thrown out.) But the block apparently won’t be limited to porn: ISPs will also be forced to block violent material, extremist sites, pro-anorexia and pro-suicide sites, alcohol, smoking, web forums (?!) and even… esoteric material.

Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing relays: (http://boingboing.net/2013/07/26/uk-censorwall-will-also-block.htm)
You may be saying to yourself, hell, how are they going to be able to sort out which websites are unacceptably pornographic, let alone which sites are “smoking” related? That’s a damned good question, and the answer is “with the broadest brush possible.” Huge chunks of the Internet will be effectively unreachable, and which sites go into the censorship bucket will be decided upon in secret, by unelected employees of big corporations, like China’s Huawei. Sure, you can untick the box if you want, but as David Cameron’s advisors will tell you, defaults are powerful and most users never change them..................

It also, of course, raises massive questions about religious freedom, and the absolute human rights emergency of the state deciding that diverging from mainstream religious beliefs is apparently now forbidden.

How far will the UK (already revealed by Ed Snowden to be far more advanced along the surveillance-state path than the US) go in cracking down on Internet freedom—and will the United States follow suit? (I wrote up further analysis here (http://www.ultraculture.org/uk-forcing-internet-censorship-even-esoteric-sites/).) Let us know how you feel in the comments below and at our Facebook group. (https://www.facebook.com/ultraculturegate)"

http://www.ultraculture.org/uk-to-censor-esoteric-websites/
Not opt-out.. opt-in, Tenni... net users will have to opt in if they want to view porn and anything else government deems seedy and not appropriate "for children"..children are the handy excuse for draconian measures to stop us gaining access to many things... and Cameron and his cronies will go as far as they wish to... what the Tories want is a compliant population who sit on their hands and do and think what they are told... substantially they have that now and it's getting worse... and not cos people are scared of government.. but cos they don't give a shit and can't b bothered when they do... that's 1 thing I see around me about far more than things like censorship especially over the last 15 months or so......thiis measure wont work of course cos kids r very net street savvy and they will find a way but iit iis just a first step...when they find it doesn't work they will move onto the next...... greater censorship and control by stealth and degrees... but by the time peeps waken up and do decide they have to stop it it may well b too late...and as has happened after every election since Thatcher was first elected they may decide on change but they will get more of the same to a greater (Tories) or lesser (Labour) degree...

[jamieknyc]

How far will the UK (already revealed by Ed Snowden to be far more advanced along the surveillance-state path than the US) go in cracking down on Internet freedom—and will the United States follow suit? (I wrote up further analysis here (http://www.ultraculture.org/uk-forcing-internet-censorship-even-esoteric-sites/).) Let us know how you feel in the comments below and at our Facebook group. (https://www.facebook.com/ultraculturegate)"

http://www.ultraculture.org/uk-to-censor-esoteric-websites/

The Clinton administration tried to create restrictions on online access to pornography, but it was quickly struck down by the courts. The courts held that attempts to restrict minors from access to online porn violated adults' First Amendment right to view porn.

[darkeyes]

We r more advanced than the US in being big bro hey? Dunno thats true but mayb.. but this isnt our lot is it is it? Tho no doubt they will quite happily accept whatever the US throws ther way...http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

[jamieknyc]

The UK has fewer restraints on what the government can do.

[darkeyes]

The UK has fewer restraints on what the government can do.
Maybe so... dusn't seem to stop ur Govt from doing it tho dus it?

[Tulsatomcat]

The blocked all my porn sites from me,
so my tender old eyes couldn't see,
pussy's or cock's either soft or like rocks
then turned on my web cam to watch me!

[darkeyes]

The UK has fewer restraints on what the government can do. o..and btw Jamie... if the NSA or ne other US intelligence agency cant snoop on US citizens in the US... don't worry too much. cos we have a bunch of bastards at GCHQ who have no such scruples or restraints and a wee notie or a fone call 2 them and the US agencies can have all the surveillance they need...:) Cool hey? Just wot the Doctor ordered in these days of privacy and secrecy and constitutional restraint...:impleased Censoring porn or owt else is least of our worries reprehensible tho it may b...:eek2:

[janet_haney]

I am pretty sure we aew being snooped more than we can possibly know.:love87:

[Gearbox]

But the block apparently won’t be limited to porn: ISPs will also be forced to block violent material, extremist sites, pro-anorexia and pro-suicide sites, alcohol, smoking, web forums (?!) and even… esoteric material.
I think that 'extremist' bit is the most worrying. THAT could mean anything to the gov, and IMO could be the meat in the dictator pasty. They have already targeted Blackberry as a risky form of co-op coms suited to coordinate rebellions. Twitter has also got their attention, and Facebook may as well be called Government Switchboard.:rolleyes: Now all they need is to have COMPLETE control of what kind of information can be shared on-line in every nook & cranny.

On a lighter note.......how many will bother with the net if they can't get their regular porn fix, or get onto a hookup site?:confused:
How long will the House of Commons stand when it's surrounded by hoards of sexually frustrated Brits?lol

[DuckiesDarling]

If I am reading Fran correctly, it's not blocked per se but something you have to OPT IN to get to see. Kinda like a child safety lock.

[darkeyes]

If I am reading Fran correctly, it's not blocked per se but something you have to OPT IN to get to see. Kinda like a child safety lock.
Is wot I sed.. but u don't c that opting in is potentially far more dangerous than opting out? Is still a form of censorship... and very sinister 1 at that:eek2:... is a lickle moren a child safety lock... more like an authoritarian tracking system:yikes2:..

[darkeyes]

I am pretty sure we aew being snooped more than we can possibly know.:love87: Mmm Janet.. long time since me had 1 of those offya..:love87:

[DuckiesDarling]

Is wot I sed.. but u don't c that opting in is potentially far more dangerous than opting out? Is still a form of censorship... and very sinister 1 at that:eek2:... is a lickle moren a child safety lock... more like an authoritarian tracking system:yikes2:..

Fran, I'm well aware that you don't like censorship, I don't except for certain things. I do see this as being a way to keep people, mostly children, who are unable to rationally process some of the rampant ads, porn ads, that pop up when you type something innocent in a search engine, from having to go to mum and dad and ask why someone is sucking on someone's weewee.

[tenni]

hmm Interesting. I didn't think that if you had blocked (ignore list) a person that you could not read the threads that they start. Well, you can always view the threads via stealth mode and open them up and then log in..lol

My understanding of the opt in is that there will be a variety of subject matter that people will not have access to unless they know the site etc. Would you be able to say google wicca/paganism/withcraft (some of the banned topics) and still see the site or is the British government blocking google searches not only for porn but the wide range of topics that the government deems unsuitable?

[_Joe_]

These measures do nothing to stop people that know how to reach the dark web and trade illicit material, for which the government wants to claim they are trying to fight against. All these measures do is create a frustration and inconvenience (at the very least) to the common internet user, while the ones already doing illegal activities laugh and keep doing what they have been doing.

[Long Duck Dong]

Is wot I sed.. but u don't c that opting in is potentially far more dangerous than opting out? Is still a form of censorship... and very sinister 1 at that:eek2:... is a lickle moren a child safety lock... more like an authoritarian tracking system:yikes2:..

there was a move to create new domains such as .XXX that would make things like the UK system more valid for a lot of parents, as adult and porn sites would end in .XXX and not .com, .net, .org etc...... and it makes me wonder what would happen with bisexual.com as its a existing site... if we would have bisexual.com the bisexual site and bisexual.XXX the sex site .......

I also wonder if that would create the situation like we have here...... I have some trolls on ignore, and when I first open the site, NOTHING they post, is visible including this thread, but if I click on the forum button, then all threads show up, just nothing the trolls post and even then only when its quoted, can I see the dribble they have posted......and I have the feeling that the filter will work on the same principal in the UK, proving that its near impossible to block most porn sites completely, you can block the sites but their ads can be visible on the net as they are not coded with the same sub sequence like * I wanna to suckdix.com/jpg.... they may have something like * d2trstad/im*

[darkeyes]

U keep falling in2 the trap it is for keeping kids away from porn.. it is.. in part.. its major purpose is about control and keeping tabs on peeps.. and about far moren porn.. get it through ya napper Duckie an u 2 darlin darlin...... it is not about porn.. porn is an excuse and goes far beyond protecting kids from porn!!!

[Hypersexual11]

Governments always seem to think that they make better parents than parents. By pitching a fit over censorship or restrictive laws, WE become the bad guys. Once the politician whines "but we havta pertect the chilren" All heads bow in shame for putting the children at risk. BS. What's the goal? What damage has porn done to the population? There was porn long before the internet, I know, I was there, hunting under beds and in drawers. Maybe not at my fingertips, but it was there. Concerning radical sites, I think we have the responsibility to see these sites to see what is making someone so mad that they are thinking in extreme measures. Most are probably pissed at powerful governments that impose their might everywhere and deserve to be targeted. Best to keep the population ignorant by feeding us what they want us to know. They have no worries really. If the internet was focused on one thing, maybe it could affect change. But for all of the thousands of horrors going on around us, by our leaders, it is just to convoluted. Our societies (UK and US) are walking with blinders. Our governments are doing horrible things all around the world. Change is impossible. We vote like lemmings attracted to the puppet with the best hair and most money. There is plenty of talk about education but again all BS. An educated society is difficult to control. Turn the education system into a propaganda machine and the result is a populace that is terrified and needs the government to protect us. When the wall came down, the shit hit the fan. OH NO, no longer is there the daily threat of annihilation, we need a new fear, oh I know TERRORISM!!! YEA!
Sorry, trying not to write a manifesto here.

[Brian]

There is a reason why no other western country has done anything like this before, even though it has been considered as a first thought, it is an incredibly bad idea rife with issues that cannot be overcome. I predict a big backtrack as ISPs point out to this government the huge issues and courts also get wind of them. How does the ISP filter out what might be inappropriate for an 8 year-old from what might be inappropriate for a 16 year old? I guess the default is every surfer is assumed to be 5 years old? Well, that is a problem right? Do we really want to go back to the days when Kinsey had couples in his office who didn't know the simple basics of sex education.

As an alternative, what I think this government should have done is required computer sellers to have sophisticated browser filter software installed on every computer sold and taught parents how to enable it - I think Windows and IE already have this covered in fact. The good filtering software urges you to set up different accounts on your computer for different people in the household. This way you can customize the filtering for the user and the parents' choices. So for example you have one set of filtering criteria for your 8 year old, but another for your 16 year old. You may for example want to give your 16 year old access to sex ed material and also racist websites for school projects (or maybe not, your choice), but keep that away from your 8 year-old. I can't remember where I did it, but for someone I helped them set up such a filter and the options were huge (different degrees and types of sexual material, racist material, violent material and so on). Then the parent simply reviews their sophisticated settings every year or so and adjusts them to the updated age of the child. This is MUCH more responsible than what this government is mandating.

This site is a good example of one that might get caught up in this bad idea. We aren't a porn site per se, and much of the site is in the spirit of sexual education and discussion, but we aren't shy about sex as entertainment either. It would be the UK's loss if most of the country could not visit the site I think.

- Drew :paw:

[Floodland]

So... would I not be able to read Aleister Crowley's work in the UK? Doesn't that kinda go against their freedom of religion?

[darkeyes]

So... would I not be able to read Aleister Crowley's work in the UK? Doesn't that kinda go against their freedom of religion?
Nope.. isn't a recognised religion here... and even if it wos.. Crowley wos a dick ne way... rather read Noddy and thats bad enuff:tongue:... now thers poison for young minds..

[Floodland]

Yeah he was a dick... but then again, so was Yahweh. And if it has to be "recognized" in order to be allowed, then that doesn't sound like much of a real freedom.

[darkeyes]

Yeah he was a dick... but then again, so was Yahweh. And if it has to be "recognized" in order to be allowed, then that doesn't sound like much of a real freedom.
U have to be real to be a dick... since (in me own humble opinion) Yahweh is figment of human imagination, bit hard for him/her/it 2 b so innit? Mayb the dicks who thought him/her/it up. hey??? Not sure Crowley wosnt figment of 'is own imagination either.. and u kno how it works here... u can believe owtya like long asya shutya gob and tow the line... so happens I agree wivya. bout religious recognition, so don't fret so:)...